The High Resolution Texture pack causes Skyrim to crash to desktop in XP 32bit ATI 6950 2GB, yet at the time the total memory used by my system (task manager) is only about 1.6GB (of about 3.4GB available physical memory) with the Skyrim process being less. Works great in XP 64 bit with similar memory usage. Rage also had texture corruption problems in 32 bit Windows with "high end textures" feature on. Since the Skyrim process is not smashing against the 2GB barrier (unless there is some "hidden" memory use), this points to bug in Skyrim, bugs in both ATI and nvidia drivers (NV users are also crashing ) or sometype of Mickysoft DirectX 32 bit limitation/bug.

32-bit has a low memory limit. The VRAM counts towards said limit. VRAM is not usable as RAM, but the system sees it as standard RAM in allocating memory. Thus, it'll run out of usable memory fast.

3.4gb is NOT available with 32bit windows.

if you have a 2gb Video card, that means you only HAVE 1.75gb of physical ram that is useable.. not 3.4.

4gb cannot be exceeded in 32bit windows

the math goes like this, in this order, whatev

(Vram + 0.256gb) + remaining available ram up to no more then 4gb = 4gb maximum.

2gb video card + 256mb ram + 4gb = stll only 4gb which means that 2.256gb is removed from the total 4gb therefore only 1.75gb of RAM is useable.

Essentially your running the game below minimum requirements (2gb of ram)

enable the 3GB switch then it will work this link will show you how to do it if you want that is http://usa.autodesk.com/adsk/servlet/ps/dl/item?siteID=123112&id=9583842&linkID=9240697

That causes problems and is not recommended.

This won't work due to having a 2gb video card.. he/she can't even use up to 2gb which is the 32bit program limit.... that's why he/she is stuck at 1.6gb for the game due to leaving windows and drivers only about 0.1gb of operating space..

i'm actually surprised the game didn't crash repeatedly without the HD pack.



PEOPLE.. listen up... if you are running windows 32bit.. don't get anything larger than 1gb vram for a video card.. otherwise you better install windows 64bit.

Stop using 32bit windows.. it's obsolete and useless now, install windows 64bit... 32bit was officially dead over 5 years ago.

If this is the case, I think that Bethesda should have released the high def dlc only for 64 bit systems, after all apparently this dlc only works in x64.

Not really true. The issue is folks using high end GPUs with 32-bit Windows. That cannibalizes the usable RAM.

I don't believe this talk about 2GB graphics memory automatically "using up" the all the system's memory or user process address space. Video memory communication areas are mapped into the 4GB address space but it is only a 256 MB high memory area on my system. There looks to be some requirements in Direct3D to "back" the video memory, but that looks to be to support allowing to switch to another program on the desktop without having to reinitialize the graphics card state from scratch. The memory on graphics cards looks to be independent of system memory.

• The "running out memory" effect does not show up in the task manager. A lot of memory is available and the Skyrim process is less that 1.2 GB. There programs that allow you to monitor the graphics card memory usage and they show that the graphics card's is only 60% full. I can run up to 2 GB programs on this system. Of course, I am always open to trying another tool to monitor Direct3D memory use and exhaustion.
  
• Bethesda says that the HD pack should work on Win32.
  
• The HD pack does work somewhat, but wil get a few corrupted textures and crash to desktop after, for example, fast travel. This does not point to a "hard" memory limit as talked about.
  
• The game works great without HD textures. The differance between HD textures and non-HD in graphics memory usage is not all that great (40% vs 60%).

Again, this looks like a bug in SKyrim or Direct3D+Device Drivers. Microsoft has little incentive these days in making 32 bit XP (or even 32 bit Vista/7) handle "more extreme" use of DX9 Direct3D work because obviously they would prefer for you to fork over $250 for a new retail copy of Windows 7 (x64).

Here, read this: http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/windows/desktop/aa366778(v=vs.85).aspx

Says little (ignoring comments) about the effect of video memory size on regular memory usage.
Only says that some areas of the address space are permanantly mapped for the devices (taken) and
(on my system) 256MB << 2048GB.

The problem is, with ATI Drivers, the /3GB switch automatically disables Direct3D.
Also, Skyrim is not hitting the 2GB user process limit.

Virtual address space limit is the issue on 32bit. If you have large VRAM then you are more likely to run into problems with virtual address space limits, not necessary physical memory limits.

DHJudas is right but it's more to do with Virtual address space.

It does tell you. It tells you that it will be seen as the memory itself and will count towards the limit. It's as clear as it can be. A 32-bit system can only use 2 ^ 31 pieces of memory. It can't use the rest, and it can't see all of the rest either.

2 ^ 31 = 2147483648

It's not a bug, it's simply how math and computer architecture works.


That may be 2 ^ 32, I may be a bit out of practice with that, but the point still stands.

I'll mention here that I still use Win7-32 by choice (for compatibility).
My 3GB in triple-channel, plus my 1GB vidcard, add up very nicely together under 32-bit.
Skyrim plays beautifully, wonderfully and never crashes or acts up...

But no, you can't really run 2GB vidcards under 32-bit - I can see how the balance would tip!
Your vidcard would then have more memory than your OS.

I have a nice sealed Win7-64 OEM here, thinking about using it and going to 6GB memory...
Or what, should I go 12GB? Memory is inexpensive.
But you know, things are working great right now...
Maybe when I score a new vidcard with more memory myself, we'll see.

But don't dis 32-bit; it's all you need for the full Skyrim experience in complete satisfaction (~800 hours and counting)!

Drivers are the only thing that are incompatible and require specific versions on 64 bit OSes. And as long as you have a PC from the last few years (which is required if you have a 64bit CPU anyway), all your drivers will have 64 bit versions.

This is correct, modern GPUs going back to AGP use memory reallocation tables to address RAM with only a portion of that mapped within the 4GB addressable limit in 32-bit OS, so even a 2GB card should only use ~256MB to get you to ~3.25GB (500GB for everything else in your system). I remember the "full memory address" theory was debunked a long time ago with Quad-SLI and 9800GX2; if all the memory was mapped it would've dropped a 32-bit system down to ~1GB, but instead it dropped it down to ~2.25GB (4x256MB).

Still, there's no reason to use a 32-bit OS anymore. Even if your GPU only takes 256MB RAM, it should be obvious 3.25GB is just woefully inadequate for the demands of modern computing. You limit any 32-bit app to 2GB, maybe 2.5GB if you mess with /3GB switch and /userva but if you do that, you start running the risk of system instability as Windows itself and all your system and hardware drivers generally needs 700MB-1GB with all of its processes running.

In simpler terms, there's no reason to argue why a tiny bucket isn't adequate or efficient when you can just go out and get a bigger bucket that solves all the issues you're concerned about. If you're a Win7 user it won't even cost you anything, just grab a legit image of Win7x64 and your 32-bit key will work with it.

My system has like 4 different 32bit and 64 bit OS's installed, so its no big deal for ME.
But for a user with XP 32-bit it is like a $250 hit for Window 7 retail, plus reinstallation of the OS for a game.

Also, for example, my XP 32bit only runs in ~200MB (instead of 700-1000MB) because I eliminated all the worthless garbage that Mickysoft and other clowns throw up on there. So that leaves me with like 3.2 GB of usable memory with up to a 2GB single process. This is enough for most computer use these days. A 32bit OS is getting closer to being obsolete, but I don't think we are totally there yet. To really do that the software would need beyond the ~2GB limit (or ~3GB with no Direct3D and /3GB). I own two games, Skyrim and Rage, that are having trouble on 32 bit XP only with extended graphics, but I don't think it because of fundamental limits, but bugs in either the games themselves or in the Graphics Drivers/Direct3D/OpenGL. So I don't think it is prudent to declare 32bit OS's dead and everybody must upgrade just yet.

There are reasons.I still use a 32-bit Windows xp for compatibility with some of my older games and software.

I wouldn't say that's a big enough reason, but I do understand people have different needs. Remember you can always dual-boot or virtual machine an older 32bit OS.

Swiched everyone over to windows 7 64 bit pro a few years ago. not the same as the home vers. Pro lets you even set it to look like XP and at the same time you can run all your old xp software.

Was able to play SWG on Pro. Code for that game was ols and back in 2004. paid 120.00 for each copy of windows 7 64 bit pro from newegg. Everyone I switched over to the new windows 7 64 bit pro loves it.

I would get 3 or 4 calls a week on what is wrong with my vista. I think I got 1 call last year for windows 7 64 bit. Was about setting up a new router. All of the systems r set to use the auto backup that comes with Pro. So I dont even get a call when a hard drive dies.

Keep an eye out for it on sale. Have seen it down to 110.00 per copy. You realy need the Pro 64 bit version of windows 7. Home version windows 7 does not have the old software pirk or the back up system. Also the pro version will let you run Xp or vista if you want to role back with full microsoft support.

For Skyrim I would say stay with just 1 DLC pack windows XP 32 bit. or Dont worry, just do it . Windows 7 64 bit pro. Then pack it with ram and dont look back. Min of 6 or 8 gig. If you have standard hard drives. Pop in a readyboost for less then 15 bucks. Skyrim takes full advantage of the readyboost system.

Windows 7 OEM keys have been $100 or less for awhile now, if you have multiple PCs that need to be upgraded, just grab a TechNet sub for ~$150 and save yourself a ton of money. http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16832116986&nm_mc=OTC-Froogle&cm_mmc=OTC-Froogle-_-Software+-+Operating+Systems-_-Microsoft-_-32116986

If you really needed legacy support for older programs/software there's the option to dual-boot but for the most part Win7 runs great in compatibility mode. Besides that, there's tons of features that come with Win7 over XP that extend beyond gaming, but even for games, there's quite a few games that are DX10+ only or have DX10+ only features you're missing out on, so its not just 1 game. Its 1 game and potentially many more down the road and if that 1 game is all you play and you can't play it, its as good a time as any to upgrade.

What games and software? I've been able to run all of my older games in Win7 x64 with compatibility mode settings. Older than 1997 or so and there's dosbox. I've had some clients that cling to XP for years because of enterprise, accounting or POS requirements, but they eventually came around as well and never looked back.

Oops, the $250 was for Windows 7 PRO Retail, I would never buy the Home version, but others may want to. Also I personally prefer not to buy OEM versions as they "can't" be transfered. They could buy the Pro upgrade at ~$175 if they had XP Retail, but then it would nice to retain the transferable XP Retail license ...
Then there are people, like myself, who hate the abusive Microsoft monopoly and want to delay as long as possible giving them money.

Anyway, the XBox is currently holding back gaming to DirectX 9 and 32 bit OS game sizes so upgrading to 64 bit Window 7 is currently not a slam dunk at this time.
The above issue is just a software bug and I don't think people should have to upgrade and reinstall their OS because of a bug.

Question, why would anyone go buy a retail copy of windows 7.... don't do that...

2nd, If you already own either vista or windows 7 in a 32bit type, it's free to change to windows 64bit of the same flavor... if you don't have a copy to borrow that is 64bit to install and use the same key, then you can either download (not ilegal) and burn a copy for yourself, OR pay microsoft about $20 for a copy to be mailed to you directly.

3rd, As stated above.. ordering an OEM copy of windows 7 64bit Home premimum is fairly cheap.... i've seen them go for less than what microsoft sells the retial UPGRADE Disks for.


Removal of startup and services related "garbage" is your solution, and i won't knock it other than the fact that 99% of the other people aren't going to attempt that. Surfice it to say, anyone can do the exact same thing to vista/win7 and actually get the memory footprint down smaller than Windows XP could ever manage.


Actually typical games have started exceeding the 2gb single process limit for about 2 years if not more. Officially there have plenty of games that have had the LAA flag enabled at launch and actually Require it in most cases, reason there are reports of issues showing up specifically for windows 32bit users experiencing crashes...

For example Mass effect 2, launched with the LAA and frequently plays with the 2gb limits, provided with what DLCs are installed and how it plays out, i personally have witnessed unexpected crashes related to it hitting the barrier, which is nonexcistant in 64bit windows.


32bit IS dead, it's becoming problematic and has been holding back developers (a common factor among consoles being a contributing factor to limiting what ends up on the PC)...

The hardware sold today far exceeds what windows 32bit can accept..

I've built machines that are now 5-7 years old for my customers that EXCEED 32bit limits (reason i was installing windows xp x64 back in even 2005)...

32bit is nowhere by todays standards, Just fine... acceptable.... and will work any longer. It's becoming very very obvious that anyone still on 32bit is really starting to feel the pain of remaining on it now more than ever prior, and it can only get worse... so why stick to something that is clearly a problematic factor?